Collectivism or Individuality

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by pro2A, Jan 17, 2009.

?

Collectivism or Individuality?

  1. Collectivism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Individuality

    100.0%
  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Which do you agree with? Do you think society should be a collective "organism" where everything is even and equal or should each individual be free to do as he pleases?

    Discuss...
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2009

  2. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Wow, good question. I don't think society could survive as a collective. We can all try to get along and keep everything fair, but if history is any indication, humans always start getting independent and try to keep things for themselves. So whether or not it should be one or the other, I think it'll still end up with everyone doing as they please.
     
  3. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    Unfortunately I can't vote in the poll since there's no middle ground option.

    A pure collective society would mean that everyone thinks and acts exactly the same, with no room for individual thought or creativity. That just frankly goes against human nature.

    On the other hand, pure individualism is anarchy. If everyone were free to do everything they pleased, the weak would be subjugated by the strong, and there would be no repercussions for acts of murder, theft, and other things of that nature.
     
    Bjarki and PretzelCorps like this.
  4. Cait

    Cait Oh, poppycock.

    Actually, I'd think both. Every person should be able to do as they please, but at the end of the day it should also be working toward the greater good together.
     
  5. sophie05976

    sophie05976 Registered Member

    definatly free to do as they please cause it wouldnt be that much fun if we were all to be the same and no difference
     
  6. oxyMORON

    oxyMORON A Darker Knight

    between the two, I'd pick individuality. It just makes things more interesting. If I'm going to live and die in 70-80 years, I'd want some excitement, not uniform everyday routine stuff.
     
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    They are mutually exclusive. How would there be a middle ground?
     
  8. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Quite easily actually, everyone is free to do as they please, and without being forced to, they choose to do stuff that is beneficial to the community. So each individual is working for the collective, however they are still each an individual.
     
    Duke1985 likes this.
  9. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    Nothing is as simple as black and white when you discuss things regarding human nature. Allow me to use an anecdotal example to illustrate my point.

    You have posted pictures of you and your kids, so I assume you are married. You and your wife are two separate individuals, with your own separate personalities, wants, needs, and other things of that nature. Now, you have come together in a marriage and have built a life together. You work together to build a good life for your family. However, as individuals, you still are separate entities, who have different thoughts and feelings from one another. I'm sure you can think of more than one time when you had a dispute where you and your wife had differing opinions on how to solve the matter.

    Now, in these disputes, you obviously weren't both thinking the same way as to what the best solution was, otherwise there would not have been a dispute in the first place. So the idea of collectivism in this situation is done. What we have left of your two options is individualism. If you had both taken a purely individualistic stance on the matter, and stuck to your point the whole way, nothing would have been accomplished. In fact, the opposite would take place, where your relationship would suffer due to the strain of the disagreement. Pure individualism is not the best choice here either.

    So what do you do? You do what most people in a relationship do, you compromise. Either one of you gives in to the other's way of thinking, or you find a solution that works in a way that both can agree with. This can be extrapolated to be applied to larger communities. Everyone, after all, is an individual. Pure collectivism is impossible. Pure individualism, however, means that everyone is able to do as they wish. This, unfortunately, is also impossible if you live in a community. I personally wish to remain alive, and I'm sure most of you do as well. Now, let's theorize that someone wishes to kill me. Obviously, one of us is going to be able to do what they wish, and someone else is not.

    That's a pretty basic example. When you think about it more, however, it becomes apparent that the real nature of pure individualism is pure anarchy. Humanity would not be in the place it is in now if we all lived in pure anarchy. Any law that exists flies in the face of pure individualism, whether you agree that the law is just and necessary or not. Pure collectivism, however, is also not possible. Even communist countries have a leader at the top who dictates how things are portioned out between the citizens. He is forcing his individual will upon the masses. If he were truly part of the collective, and if there truly was a collective, there would be no need for a ruler. Everyone would automatically do what is best for the community.

    (sorry for the essay length post, I've been drinking and I tend to wax philosophy when I am drunk.)
     
    ysabel likes this.
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I agree with Stab. A perfect collectivist society, and a perfect individualistic society, would both be as much by virtue of maximizing the wellbeing of those who comprise it, and thus would both perhaps be exactly the same. Any society comprised of people with some odd conception of collectivism or individualism as their ultimate goal, would likely be short-lived and shitty.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009

Share This Page